Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion
Old log files Note:As this about files in the Memory Alpha: namespace related to the administration, normal deletion rules might not apply. This is more a discussion. * (I already had moved that one before realizing what it is) *Memory Alpha:Deletion log *Memory Alpha:Upload log *Memory Alpha:Protection log *Memory Alpha:Block log These five seem to be old log files from before the server move. We now have for all these. Do we want to keep the old stuff or delete it? -- Cid Highwind 10:40, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' 1985 16:30, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete', I'm all for cleaning house. --Alan del Beccio 06:43, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC) **I deleted all of these pages but noticed that several still link to a lot of other internal pages. I intended to change them, but I am not sure to what, so the remaining blue links need to either have their links removed from other pages or replaced with the updated-replacement links on other those pages. --Alan del Beccio 06:30, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) **I'd like to see some more comments regarding the deletion of these anyway - some other admins, perhaps? After all, these are log files, so we should definitely agree on what to do... -- Cid Highwind 08:26, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***To be fair, it has been 5 days AND very few of us/them seem to partake in much voting these days...be it categories, featured articles or what have ya...--Alan del Beccio 08:31, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) **I'm not quite sure how they'd be useful, is there a feeling we should be able to peruse lists of files deleted or protected years ago? it might be nice to archive somewhere, i guess -- are we required to record vandalism and the like -- thats probably a good portion of the the block and protection info (as well as a majority of deletions). -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 08:36, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***I dont see any real reason to keep a list of individuals and IPs we've blocked from a year or year + a half ago, its really only the last 6 to 9 months that are important, if anyone is really keeping track of that. --Alan del Beccio 02:16, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT) * Delete - I also don't see a reason to keep these (and honestly didn't know they existed) There's an "edit page", I'm fairly new, so I'm wondering: back in the day, you had to manually log each deleted page? - AJHalliwell 00:49, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC) Gamma Quadrant Listening Post 1 ;Gamma Quadrant Listening Post 1: * I don't recall this term being used, but I would guess, from what limited info it contains that it would be in reference to the article taht was just featured...um, Wormhole relay station. --Alan del Beccio 07:46, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' Even if this was lagitimate, there is no info in this article which isn't in the title. Tobyk777 23:35, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) *'Comment'. I do remember an occasion or two where Sisko and the crew mentioned something about this. One was In Purgatory's Shadow, where they got the Cardassian "laundry list" that was an encoded message. Sisko specifically said "one of our listening posts in the Gamma Quadrant" picked up the signal, and in next episode they say that their last listening post just went dead shortly before the Dominion fleet comes through. I don't know about numbering though. Makon 23:48, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) ** That should just be posted at listening post then, rather than making up a illegitimate name. --Alan del Beccio 19:39, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC) Leslie Shatner ;Leslie Shatner * Unlike Melanie and Lisabeth, Leslie did not appear in any episodes of Star Trek, so her entry here should be treated the same. What useful references there are, should be added to the William, Lisabeth, Melanie, Lemli, Leslie and corresponding episode pages that they first identified in and that's about it. --Alan del Beccio 06:23, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC) USS Voyager prototype ;USS Voyager prototype Information integrated on the Intrepid class page. I don't think a background information related topic like this deserves its own article. Ottens 13:59, 30 Sep 2005 (UTC) * Delete --Alan del Beccio 19:39, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC) USS Masaryk ;USS Masaryk : Currently listed as being a candidate for deletion, but I don't see it here, so I went and added it. The info looks non-canon, which is probably why Mike wanted it deleted, as it should be. --From Andoria with Love 05:17, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC) * Delete/Deleted -- clearly not canon. --Alan del Beccio 19:39, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC) Star trek I Hate You Punk Sorry, I didn't see it on the "I Hate You" page before when I looked. But, this one is a bit clearer (although I admit it needs trimming). If you don't want to transfer it to Vulcan nerve pinch, maybe it should just be deleted.--Mike Nobody 05:22, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC) * I'm not sure what this is in reference to. --Alan del Beccio 19:39, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC) William Jones ;William Jones I wanna see immiediet delete, as the article even says "no connection to Star trek whatsoever" but as everyone else in his little band were Star Trek actors, is it possible we're just missing something with him? Otherwise, yeah, delete. -AJHalliwell 11:23, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'. Like you said, it even says it has no connection. -[[User:Platypus222|'Platypus Man']] | ''Talk'' 12:27, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'. --From Andoria with Love 13:04, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC) *'Strong Delete' It even says it has no relevence. The aouthor of this is just asking for it to be deleted. Tobyk777 01:53, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC) ** Deleted - no trek relevance. --Alan del Beccio 19:39, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC) Redirects Waist extractor; Airshuttle; The Cost of Living; Vengeance Factor; Snarkian; Investigation; Deathwish; Diplomacy and Laws; Maddox; Diplomacy and law Several redirects created by User:Vedek Dukat. I've read some recent issues over redirects to eliminate typos, so shouldn't these be deleted also? Surely using wrong redirects to episodes only encourages laziness and errors to occur more frequently. --Defiant | ''Talk'' 23:06, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC) *'Keep' Diplomacy and law and Maddox, delete Diplomacy and Laws. The latter are legitimate redirects since capitalization and last names are both considered legitimate redirects. I can find examples to cite if you want. I don't know about Deathwish, since it seems legitimate to me, but you might have a different interpretation of what's allowed... Vedek Dukat 02:11, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC) * Delete --Alan del Beccio 19:39, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC) Element with no Trek relevance *Radium No Trek relevance, I recommend that the page's content be merged with Johnsonium and deleted. --Defiant | ''Talk'' 23:06, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC) * Comment: I really don't care if these are kept one way or another. On the one hand, the symbol was used, but with another element. On the other, as you said, there is absolutely no trek relevance (the info is already pretty much on the Johnsonium article, albeit not the atomic number. If Radium, is going to go then I suggest deleting similar articles: **Thulium **Mendelevium (created before the element revamp) **Bismuth **Barium **Bromine **Cesium **Einsteinium **Francium **Polonium *--Tim Thomason 23:14, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC) Relationships ;Data & Jean-Luc Picard, Jean-Luc Picard & William T. Riker, William T. Riker & Deanna Troi and their redirects : We don't single articles created solely for describing a relationship; also, there's nothing here that can't be found on their individual character pages (once they're reverted, anyway). No consensus has been reached at the discussion on Ten Forward, and I for one think this is a very bad idea. Nobody's going to be looking for a specific relationship; they'll be looking for a specific character, from which they will read on their relationships. Besides, there are far too many relationships to create, unless you're will to create Jonathan Archer & Charles Tucker, Jonathan Archer & T'Pol, Benjamin Sisko & Kira Nerys, Kira Nerys & Odo, Tom Paris & B'Elanna Torres, Geordi La Forge & Data, and so on and so forth. --From Andoria with Love 20:08, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC) *'Keep' - nobody said that we create such articles for every "couple", it's just to embank that articles like William T. Riker are so long that they load eternally. It also prevents from duplication. The readers are directed to the new pages by the links. --Memory 21:22, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'. See ten forward for my take on why the argument about duplicate information is pure laziness. But to Memory's arguments: Why can't people just use the table of contents to navigate the page? I don't want to click 500 times to see information about a single person. :P --Schrei 21:34, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC) **'Keep' see Ten Forward for my reasoning. Jaf 23:25, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)Jaf * Delete and revert. While a good idea in theory, some of the relationships sections for individual characters could probably be written in a different POV for each character... for instance, the Will Riker/Deanna Troi information is focused more on Will's perspective and actions, rather than Deanna's. The information I'd expect to see on an ideal page about Deanna would be written differently, focusing more on her POV. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 05:45, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC) * I think it might be best not to handle this whole thing as a VfD-situation. What it boils down to is to either move information from or back to the main article, both of which could be done without decision on this page even in the future. That means we have to find a consensus about these pages in general first, and this page is not the place to do so. So my suggestion is to postpone this voting. If that finds no support, I vote to delete and revert those pages, especially for the reasons SmokeDetector stated. -- Cid Highwind 08:53, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC) * Restore original articles and delete. Agreed, they should be written from the perspective of Picard OR Riker OR Troi and therefore should not contain the same content as the creation of these pages forces upon the reader. --Alan del Beccio 22:40, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC) Achilles class ;Achilles class * Non-canon. --Alan del Beccio 19:29, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC) * Merged into the game which it apparently non-canonly came from. Any problems with Immediate deletion, as things exactly like this have repetitively voted to delete and merge before? If not; Delete, merged. - AJHalliwell 19:36, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC) Growth hormone I got it when I hit random page... is it even canon? -Makon 01:46, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)